FIGURE 4 - uploaded by Sheela Athreya
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 'Evolution of Man'. Illustrations such as this depicting the stages of human evolution typically represent the final stage as a white male Source: Heritage Images; artist Karen Humpage ©. Reprinted with artist's permission.
Similar publications
The place of origin of the worship of Xipe Tótec is still uncertain. Archaeological studies of central Mexico have argued that this cult dates to Teotihuacan or even Olmec times. Nonetheless, said archaeological and iconographic evidence has never been systematically compared with that found in the west of the México, even ignoring Bernardino De Sa...
Citations
... Through the ethnocentric lens, the term 'Other' is always used discriminatorily, and the 'Other' is always different in the negative connotation of the term (Hussain, 2020). This narrative is used to devalue and marginalize the 'others' because the system that judges is the sole holder of the dogmatic truth (Athreya & Rogers Ackermann, 2020). In my opinion, this has been the mindset steering the study of the MP record (but also human evolution in general) for most of the last century. ...
The recognition of artistic expressions coming from the Palaeolithic has always been skewed towards the acknowledgement of our species as the sole superior maker. This is due to the double standard applied to the Palaeolithic archaeological research, for which similar material evidence from Modern Human and Neanderthal contexts are interpreted differently because different levels of cognitive abilities are attached to different human species. This biased understanding of the deep past comes from a mindset derived from the 'colonial thought' that steered (and regrettably often still steers) Western political, social, and scientific agendas. Colonialism implies the owning and the refusal of knowledge and culture of the Other by the superior Western knowledge system. Colonialism is here understood as the product of a universal Ethnocentrism, proper of the human mind. In this paper, a review of the state of knowledge and debates around Neanderthal modernity is presented by using Middle and Upper Palaeolithic artistic expressions as a case study. Ultimately, a more relativistic theoretical framework is proposed to move beyond futile discussions around hominins' complexity of thoughts and behaviours. Understanding that our species stands not alone on a higher evolutive step can help archaeology (and also other sciences involved in the study of the deep past) move forward and beyond its boundaries, by re-evaluating and questioning old interpretations and hypotheses, products of an ethnocentric mindset.
... A lack of engagement of local communities and educators leaves room for misinformation about human evolution, particularly because historical misuse of Darwinism by scientists have led to a poor understanding of how ancient hominin populations relate to living ones. The results of genetic studies are particularly open to misinterpretation by the public, as living populations, particularly hunter-gatherers, continue to be used as proxies for the past as if their current mode of subsistence was not the product of colonial entanglements (see Athreya & Ackermann, 2018;Esterhuysen, 2018;Scott, 2005;Sutherland & L'Abbé, 2019). ...
... In this way, colonial powers could concede that the ancestry of human lies in other continents, while maintaining the ethos of the civilizing mission. 321 The explanation of human ancestry in evolutionary discourses reflects the role of power within knowledge production. It marked a form of 'scientific imperialism' . ...
In 1978, UNESCO Secretary General Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow compared cultural colonial objects to ‘witnesses to history’. Their treatment is one of the most debated questions of our time. Calls for a novel international cultural order go back to decolonization. However, for decades, the issue has been treated as a matter of comity or been reduced to a Shakespearean dilemma: to return or not to return. This book seeks to go beyond these classic dichotomies. It argues that contemporary practices are at a tipping point. It shows that cultural takings were material to the colonial project throughout different periods (early takings, birth of modern nation state, nineteenth-century scramble for objects) and went far beyond looting. It relies on micro histories and object biographies to trace recurring justifications and contestations of takings and returns, and the complicity of anthropology, racial science, and professional networks in colonial collecting. It demonstrates the dual role of law and cultural heritage regulation in enabling colonial injustices, and mobilizing resistance thereto. It challenges the argument that takings were acceptable according to the standards of the time. Drawing on the interplay between justice, ethics, and human rights, it develops a theory of entanglement to rethink contemporary approaches. It shows that future engagement requires a reinvention of knowledge systems and relations towards objects, including new forms of consent, provenance research, partnership and a rethinking of the role of museums themselves. It proposes principles of relational cultural justice to confront ongoing historic, legal, and economic entanglements and enable normative transformation.
... This reflects the fact that it is enormously difficult for archaeologists of more recent times to ignore or deny personal testimonies of violence that accompany studied material evidence (though many certainly have, either through their ignorance or through an incessant willfulness fueled by a commitment to a detached and apolitical scientism, as discussed above). Violence, however, is an issue reaching far enough that archaeologists of the deeper past would be mistaken to think the work of reckoning does not apply to them (Athreya and Rogers Ackermann, 2020). ...
... In recent years, and particularly in the last years after the recent rise of the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, many scholars have questioned some dark aspects of our scientific past (e.g., Athreya and colleagues [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Even the scientific and societal legacies of one of the scientists that continues to be idolized by a substantial number of Western scientists nowadays, Charles Darwin Another problem is that, as shown in a recent Science Textbook Survey Report, 13 in countries such as the United States the scientific textbooks that are used to educate the next generations continue to be mainly written by "white" men (i.e., European descendants). ...
In the past decades, it has been increasingly recognized that some areas of science, such as anthropology, have been plagued by racist, Western-centric, and/or sexist biases. Unfortunately, an acculturation process to racism and sexism has been occurring for generations leading to systemic inequities that will take a long time to disappear. Here, we highlight the existence of current examples of how racism, Western-centrism and sexism within: (1) the most popular anatomical atlases used in biological, anthropological and medical education; (2) prominent natural history museums and World Heritage Sites; (3) biological and anthropological scientific research publications; and (4) popular culture and influential children's books and educational materials concerning human biology and evolution.
... It is also important to note here that a model by Wu (1988Wu ( , 2004, called the "Continuity with Hybridization model", has also been placed within this set of models. This model was largely marginalized given its connection to multiregionalism (see below), but also the tendency of the paleoanthropological community at the time to overlook ideas by non-Western scientists (see discussion Athreya and Ackermann, 2019). ...
... However, the exact definition of this theory has changed over time, with more recent iterations including both the recognition that Africa was the major root for the origin of humans, and the idea that hybridization between regions was commonplace (Wolpoff and Relethford, 1997). While the original interpretation of the "Multiregional Evolution" theory has been disproved given current genetic, fossil and archaeological evidence from Africa, as is discussed in Athreya and Ackermann (2019), the criticism of the various iterations of the multiregional model can also be linked to sociopolitics at various points in the history of the discipline. ...
... Within this classificatory framework, consideration of variation is predominantly used as a means for determining how different two fossils have to be put into different species or subspecies, information marshaled for the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships, rather than being a direct focus of study. In addition to approaching variation through a decidedly typological framework, these approaches also frequently (and largely unconsciously) narrate our origins through a colonial and racialized lens, a historical legacy of otherizing some and elevating others (Wolpoff and Caspari, 2000;Athreya and Ackermann, 2020;Athreya and Hopkins, 2021). ...
... We began this article by highlighting how hominin variation has historically been studied within a typological framework, as a means for classifying rather than an entrance into understanding complex process, and how, in some cases, these approaches have resulted in a historical legacy that otherizes some and elevates others (Wolpoff and Caspari, 2000;Athreya and Ackermann, 2020;Athreya and Hopkins, 2021). For the 'modern human origins' narrative in particular, an adaptationist model where one group was adaptively superior to another and outcompeted them has resulted in the historical marginalization of Asian taxa and researchers, and ironically (despite the 'Out of Africa' focus) in the primitivizing and alienation of African ones (Athreya and Ackermann 2020). ...
... practices, and we asked ourselves whether and to what extent such demographics have shifted over the lifetime of the journal as the scientific endeavor has matured. These are important considerations given that the identity and socio-political context of researchers can shape the narrative direction of the journal and the science itself (e.g., Athreya and Ackermann, 2020), an issue that is relevant for JHE going forward. 7 Figure 5 provides three infographics, the first looking at data from the first six years of JHE's outputs, from 1972 to 1977, the second from the six years immediately following the shift in editorial oversight to include the USA, from 1986 to 1991, and the third for the last six years for which we have full data, 2016e2021. ...
The Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) was founded 50 years ago when much of the foundation for how we think about human evolution was in place or being put in place, providing the main framework for how we consider our origins today. Here, we will explore historical developments, including early JHE outputs, as they relate to our understanding of the relationship between phenotypic variation and evolutionary process, and use that as a springboard for considering our current understanding of these links as applied to human evolution. We will focus specifically on how the study of variation itself has shifted us away from taxonomic and adaptationist perspectives toward a richer understanding of the processes shaping human evolutionary history, using literature searches and specific test cases to highlight this. We argue that natural selection, gene exchange, genetic drift, and mutation should not be considered individually when considering the production of hominin diversity. In this context, we offer suggestions for future research directions and reflect on this more complex understanding of human evolution and its broader relevance to society. Finally, we end by considering authorship demographics and practices in the last 50 years within JHE and how a shift in these demographics has the potential to reshape the science of human evolution going forward.
... During apartheid South Africa there was a program of misappropriating science to further racist agendas, which included the interpretations of archaeological finds (Esterhuysen 2020). These justifications were in line with the western world which casted African and Asia as other, as primitive, infantile, and not civilised (Athreya & Ackermann 2020). Notions of primitiveness have impacted detrimentally on the identities of affected South Africans to this day (Esterhuysen 2020). ...
... Notions of primitiveness have impacted detrimentally on the identities of affected South Africans to this day (Esterhuysen 2020). The diorama of Khoesan people at Iziko Museum in Cape Town was only recently removed from display in 2013 for the reason of primitivising people and making people the mere objects of scientific curiosity (Athreya & Ackermann 2020). ...
... The fate of Sarah Baartman serves as a profound example of colonial attitudes towards the indigenous people of South Africa. Sarah Baartman was a Khoe woman who was taken to Europe in the early 1800's to be exhibited as a freak show and ''living savage'' (Athreya & Ackermann 2020). After her death in 1816 a cast was made of her body that went on display until the 1970s. ...
Creating and sharing 3D digital replicas of archaeological sites online has become increasingly common. They are being integrated in excavation workflows, used to foster public engagement with the site, and provide communication and outreach of research, which now happen on digital media platforms. However, there has been little introspection by the community involved in the 3D documentation field, which has resulted in problematic practices. We critique the western paradigm of archaeological visualisation and propose recommendations for inclusive, decolonised visualisations of living heritage and archaeological places. To begin, we define in broad terms what an archaeological site is, and then we describe how these sites have been recorded and represented using the latest technology for digital re-production, namely laser scanning and photogrammetry. Following that we provide a critical analysis of current 3D visualisations of archaeological sites and develop an approach to ensure that the significance, meaning, and potency of archaeological and living heritage places are transferred to their digital replicas. Our case study at Ga-Mohana Hill in South Africa then offers practical approaches and methodologies that the fields of cultural heritage documentation and archaeological visualisation can employ to address their recurring issues as identified in the critical analysis. We present an online, interactive 3D digital replica of a living heritage and archaeological place that we believe responds appropriately to its political, cultural, and social context along with communicating its archaeological significance.
... This elision from "increase" to "improvement" is dangerous for archaeology given the discipline's long history of promoting racist and progressivist colonial hierarchies. 76 There is a principled sense in which increasing biological fitness could be termed "improvement" but the same is not generically true of increasing complexity or maximization of particular performance characteristics. As Mesoudi and Thornton 18 discuss, the CCE concept is often applied to cultural traits with no apparent benefit to the bearer's inclusive fitness. ...
... Perhaps for this reason there are no strong and direct empirical case studies showing demic diffusion of lithic technologies. Nevertheless, demic diffusion has been treated as a self-evident assumption behind some popular narratives of the global dispersal of Anatomically Modern Human (AMH), a tendency that has been argued to reflect the continued influence of a colonialist mindset in paleoanthropology.76 With respect to lithics, in particular, it has been argued by Mellars120 that the similarity between geometric backed artifacts in the Howieson's Poort of South Africa, the Uluzzian culture in Southern Europe, and multiple Late Pleistocene assemblages in South Asia is a result of AMH diffusion into Eurasia around 50,000-45,000 years ago. ...
The cultural reproduction of lithic technology, long an implicit assumption of archaeological theories, has garnered increasing attention over the past decades. Major debates ranging from the origins of the human culture capacity to the interpretation of spatiotemporal patterning now make explicit reference to social learning mechanisms and cultural evolutionary dynamics. This burgeoning literature has produced important insights and methodological innovations. However, this rapid growth has sometimes led to confusion and controversy due to an under-examination of underlying theoretical and methodological assumptions. The time is thus ripe for a critical assessment of progress in the study of the cultural reproduction of lithic technology. Here we review recent work addressing the evolutionary origins of human culture and the meaning of artifact variation at both intrasite and intersite levels. We propose that further progress will require a more extended and context-specific evolutionary approach to address the complexity of real-world cultural reproduction.
... We will also attempt to move away from traditional approaches to human evolutionary narratives (see Athreya et al. 2019;Porr and Matthews 2019). Specifically, we here move away from an idea of a ladder of progress (Athreya et al. 2019) and from the notion of humans as exceptional (Anderson 2019). ...
... We will also attempt to move away from traditional approaches to human evolutionary narratives (see Athreya et al. 2019;Porr and Matthews 2019). Specifically, we here move away from an idea of a ladder of progress (Athreya et al. 2019) and from the notion of humans as exceptional (Anderson 2019). We also seek to move beyond ideas of different variations of human as superior or inferior to each other, and from a focus on intelligence as some prime mover or defining feature of humanity (Anderson 2019). ...
We readily accept that it is our emotional connections to the people whom we love and care about that make us human. We sacrifice for our loved ones, feel joy and pain in equal measure with our friends, and even reach out to connect to the lives and wellbeing of people we have never met. However, we rarely think about where these feelings come from. Our stories of human evolutionary success are so focused on intelligence, individual resilience or strategic collaboration that you might even imagine that our ancestors had no significant emotional connections at all. The aim of this volume is an ambitious one. We hope to begin to better understand the distant evolutionary origins of our peculiarly human social feelings and how they drive our emotional connections to those around us. We hope to untangle why we respond so readily to others in need, why kindness is so important, and why our rather peculiar emotional vulnerabili-ties and sensitivities emerged. In doing so, we also hope to better understand our own feelings and uncover why the evolutionary background to our human emotional connections is important today. We will, of course, build on existing research. Most obviously, we will build on decades of research into understanding why human minds are unique. How to cite this book chapter: Spikins, P., 2022. Hidden Depths: the origins of human connection. Pp. 1-13. York: White Rose University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22599/HiddenDepths.a. License: CC BY-NC 4.0 2 HIDDEN DEPTHS These include approaches to the evolution of human intelligence in general , and to specific types of 'intelligence' (Overmann and Coolidge 2019; Overmann and Wynn 2019; Wynn and Coolidge 2016), including social intelligence (Dunbar 2003; Dunbar 2018). We will consider what we can learn from the emotional motivations of minds very different from our own, such as those of our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees, and those of our closest friends, dogs and their wolf ancestors. We will also build on a history of research into our emotions that began as far back as Darwin himself (Dar-win 1872). We will also expand existing research. Within archaeology, for example, aside from debates over evolutionary changes in emotional attitudes to death (Pettitt 2010; Pettitt 2018; Pettitt and Anderson 2019) or to childcare (Hrdy and Burkart 2020; Langley 2020), there has been only a limited body of research into how the archaeological record provides insight into the evolution of our modern social emotions or our close human emotional connections to others. Palaeolithic archaeology, in general, has tended to shy away from emotions, with discussions of how our minds evolved tending to focus on subjects such as thinking skills, the basis for art, or the origins of language (Coward 2016; Stade and Gamble 2019), or been limited to a cultural rather than evolutionary viewpoint (Lyons and Super-nant 2020; Tarlow 2012). Evolutionary archaeology of those most human emotional capacities that affect our social lives is relatively novel. Furthermore , we hope to develop a wider interdisciplinary perspective on human origins, drawing on material evidence for real people and behaviours in the distant past. We will bring something new. We are already aware that our human capacity for social collaboration was important in our distant evolutionary past. However, there is much more to discover about why our human emotional connections are such an important part of our evolutionary story. We need to delve into the specifics of archaeological and fossil evidence, as well as evolutionary understanding, to uncover what happened in our distant origins to make us capable of the emotional connections that bind us together today. Over the 7 to 8 million years of an evolutionary past that separates us from other apes, there have been many different ecological changes, selective pressures, evolutionary branches and offshoots, and many different INTRODUCTION 3
